skills set experience as a competitor or coach in policy debate an ability to effectively advocate for the Alliance in a large urban school bureaucracy and a good sense of humor The Dallas UDA has grown significantly in the first few years of its existence and Alliance teams have competed successfully in the Chase Urban Debate National Championship and in local and regional tournaments outside of the UDL The Alliance s current director is leaving the post after three successful years in order to attend law school The Alliance is governed by an Advisory Board comprised of former high school and college debaters attorneys business executives and educators all of whom are deeply committed to the success of the league Qualifications B A degree or higher Strong interpersonal skills negotiation skills and ability to work collaboratively Excellent written and oral communications skills Experience in urban education non profit administrative or classroom is a plus Experience in current high school or college policy debate is a strong plus Maturity judgment and communication necessary to effectively work with train and support urban educators Willingness to work evenings weekends total working hours will be 40 50 but hours will not always be 9 to 5 High degree of determination innovation initiative and persistence Skills necessary to run debate tournaments trainings and site visits to high schools Administrative and organizational skills necessary to attend to the business needs of an educational nonprofit organization A demonstrated record of performing high caliber work independent of daily supervision Willingness and ability to be trained in the NAUDL model for urban debate leagues and capacity for adapting said model to local needs under the direction of the Dallas Advisory Board Ownership of a vehicle or willingness to ride public transportation to high schools and other sites Job Description The Dallas Urban Debate League Executive Director will be the principal programmatic and administrative agent of the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance acting under the direction of the Dallas Advisory Board The primary responsibilities of the Executive Director are to a train and support the Dallas UDA coaches b maintain and increase participation levels at member schools c seed new programs at high schools not yet participating in the Dallas UDA d administer all Dallas UDA events professionally and efficiently e track program inputs and outputs f assist the Advisory Board in preparing for meetings and meeting all business needs of the organization and g execute the Dallas UDA Advisory Board s policies goals and directives in running the Dallas UDA on a day to day basis The Dallas UDL Executive Director will Serve as the chief administrator of the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance The Executive Director will be primarily responsible for effecting two core programmatic objectives significantly increasing student participation in the league each year and significantly strengthening the relationship between the Dallas Independent School District and the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance Serve as liaison between the Dallas Advisory Board and all of the following i Dallas UDA coaches ii NAUDL in Chicago iii DISD personnel including high school principals iv key donors including prospective donors and v outside vendors and contractors who provide needed services to the Dallas UDA such as public accountants PR consultants caterers and printers Plan coordinate staff and implement coach student and judge training workshops Promote and effect high attendance at trainings and track participation of students and Alliance coaches Regularly visit individual schools providing necessary training and support to both students and coaches Provide on going training assistance and support to UDA Coaches through phone email and in person meetings Establish operational procedures for UDA Tournaments Announcements Registration Tab Room Judge Table Awards Ceremony etc Schedule promote arrange and direct six Dallas UDA tournaments annually Chaperone Dallas UDA qualifiers to the Chase Urban Debate National Championship typically held in April of each year in Chicago Regularly report to and work cooperatively with the Dallas Independent School District DISD meet by phone or in person with appropriate DISD Administrators as needed Negotiate the annual Memorandum of Understanding MOU with the DISD in close coordination with the Dallas Advisory Board Implement and improve the organization s public relations strategy Publicize our successes with the goal of permanently planting the Dallas UDA into the Dallas community so that all individuals whose cooperation we need in order to succeed e g DISD administrators donors coaches principals students and their parents feel rewarded for supporting us Coordinate improve and regularly update the Dallas UDA web page Represent the Dallas UDA Advisory Board at community school system development business and civic meetings and events Plan and coordinate the annual Dallas UDA Awards Dinner typically held in conjunction with the annual Dallas City Championship tournament Keep the records necessary to track monitor and assess the programming inputs i e student participants teacher involvement contact training hours debate programming and outputs i e graduation rates college matriculation grade point average standardized test scores attendance specific performance assessments etc Report regularly to meet with and take direction from the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance Advisory Board Maintain all financial records of the Dallas UDL make regular financial reports to the Board Handle compliance with third party officials so that nonprofit status and any needed certifications are kept up Additional Information Compensation will be commensurate with experience Candidates must currently live in or be willing to relocate to the Dallas area Candidates who pass an initial screening process will be interviewed in person by the Dallas UDA Advisory Board with support from the NAUDL It is the policy of the Dallas UDA Advisory Board to provide employment opportunities without regard to race color religion creed national origin age marital status disability sexual orientation gender sex as required by law Submit one copy of your CV and a cover letter by January 19 2010 to both Craig Budner Chair Dallas UDA Advisory Board 1717 Main Street Suite 2800 Dallas TX 75201 Craig Budner at klgates com Scott Deatherage Executive Director NAUDL 332 S Michigan Ave Suite

part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091107 3ac8fbe4 attachment htm From gregachten Sat Nov 7 00 18 12 2009 From gregachten gregachten at berkeley edu Date Sat 07 Nov 2009 06 18 12 0000 Subject eDebate Wake Judging Message ID Cal is looking to hire rounds at Wake Forest We pay in cash at the tournament Let me know if you are interested Greg From alfred snider Sun Nov 8 02 59 28 2009 From alfred snider Alfred C Snider Date Sun 08 Nov 2009 08 59 28 0000 Subject eDebate Unger Company 1992 videos now online Message ID This is a discussion program that was made in 1992 featuring some of the most successful coaches of American policy debate I have processed three programs from the third series The panelists are James J Unger American University chair William Southworth University of Redlands Joel Rollins University of Texas Dallas Perkins Harvard University Jeff Parcher Georgetown University Part One Evidence Topicality Judging Impact analysis http debatevideoblog blogspot com 2009 11 discussion policy debate unger and html Part Two inherency structure generics counterplans and real world issues http debatevideoblog blogspot com 2009 11 discussion policy debate unger company html Part Three Presentation Intrinsicness Institutes and Direction http debatevideoblog blogspot com 2009 11 discussion policy debate unger and 08 html James J Unger has now passed away You can see his tribute webpage at http jimunger org index html Thanks to the Lynde Foundation and to the National Forensic League for these videos Debate videos are regularly posted at http debatevideoblog blogspot com Download from the Debate Video archive at in chronological order newest first http www uvm edu debate watch C M O D For more debate information go to http debate uvm edu Video processed by Alfred Snider University of Vermont Alfred C Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House 475 Main Street UVM Burlington VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http debate uvm edu debateblog LDU Global Debate Blog http globaldebateblog blogspot com Debate Central http debate uvm edu 802 656 0097 office telephone 802 656 4275 office fax From sheldonkreger Sun Nov 8 14 06 08 2009 From sheldonkreger Sheldon Kreger Date Sun 08 Nov 2009 20 06 08 0000 Subject eDebate List of Debate Resources Message ID It appears that eDebate is being phased out As such I would appreciate any information on online debate resources for all of us to stay up to date in debate community ongoings Thank you sheldon next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091108 7b08dfbf attachment htm From antonucci23 Sun Nov 8 14 28 36 2009 From antonucci23 Michael Antonucci Date Sun 08 Nov 2009 20 28 36 0000 Subject eDebate edebate s estate Message ID Let me echo Scott s thanks to Phil I think in both this and other projects you ve advanced the community s interest tirelessly I think you should do precisely what you want to do If you feel that maintaining the listserv is rewarding you should do that If you feel that it s a pain you should pull the plug or let it fall into disrepair It isn t doing any harm but the effort involved in making it fast again might be prohibitive I have one small concern What about the archives It seems that measures should be taken for executing e debate s estate Will they be maintained at the current location Is that costing you I m sure that hosting is available at any number of places Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile 617 838 3345 Office 202 687 4079 next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091108 ab9ad555 attachment htm From Roy Eno Tue Nov 10 08 01 30 2009 From Roy Eno Roy Eno Date Tue 10 Nov 2009 14 01 30 0000 Subject eDebate eDebate Digest Vol 50 Issue 7 In Reply To References Message ID Before pulling the plug on edebate if that indeed happens how about transferring archives Perhaps this has already been planned and I have missed the thread if so disregard Either way Phil thanks for a pioneering platform for creating community and process memory not to mention a massive amount of work Skip Eno UTSA Original Message From edebate bounces at www ndtceda com mailto edebate bounces at www ndtceda com On Behalf Of edebate request at www ndtceda com Sent Sunday November 08 2009 12 00 PM To edebate at www ndtceda com Subject eDebate Digest Vol 50 Issue 7 Send eDebate mailing list submissions to edebate at www ndtceda com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web visit http www ndtceda com mailman listinfo edebate or via email send a message with subject or body help to edebate request at www ndtceda com You can reach the person managing the list at edebate owner at www ndtceda com When replying please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re Contents of eDebate digest Today s Topics 1 Phil Shut Down edebate its OK scottelliott at grandecom net Message 1 Date Mon 26 Oct 2009 08 09 24 0500 From scottelliott at grandecom net Subject eDebate Phil Shut Down edebate its OK To edebate at ndtceda com Cc ceda L at ndtceda com Message ID Content Type text plain charset ISO 8859 1 DelSp Yes format flowed I want to thank Mr Kerpen for maintaining edebate He is also a real hoot to watch on the Glen Beck show However it is time to shut this site down Its ok We really do not need it anymore Maintaining the site is causing confusion and delaying the transition to the CEDA sponsored listserves Based on the dearth of postings and the delays in needed postings it is apparent that edebate has outlived its purpose It would save time money and bandwidth to just get rid of it Having had more fun than just about anyone ranting on edebate I am a little saddened by its demise But it is time to pull the plug on edebate Scott Elliott eDebate mailing list eDebate at www ndtceda com http www ndtceda com mailman listinfo edebate End of eDebate Digest Vol 50 Issue 7 From dave Tue Nov 10 10 37 18 2009 From dave Steinberg David L Date Tue 10 Nov 2009 16 37 18 0000 Subject eDebate Invitation to Party at NCA Message ID The University of Miami School of Communication Cordially invites you to a reception at the NCA Convention 2009 Thursday November 12th 8 00 10 00 p m Hilton Chicago Meeting Room Boulevard B Second Fl David L Steinberg Director of Debate University of Miami P O Box 248127 Coral Gables Florida 33124 305 284 5553 office 305 284 5216 fax 305 926 8498 cell dave at miami edu Go Canes next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091110 9679cca5 attachment htm From ssa2133 Tue Nov 10 14 12 34 2009 From ssa2133 Shree Awsare Date Tue 10 Nov 2009 20 12 34 0000 Subject eDebate Cite Request Emory Message ID Hey if Emory GM Gibson Malsin or someone on the team can backchannel me about 1NC cites Emory GM read against us in Round 5 of Harvard I would be much obliged Thanks Shree Awsare Columbia AD next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091110 15204dd6 attachment htm From blain Tue Nov 10 18 34 31 2009 From blain Lain Brian Date Wed 11 Nov 2009 00 34 31 0000 Subject eDebate UNT Invite 2010 Message ID Dear Community The University of North Texas Debate Forum and the Department of Communication Studies at UNT are pleased to invite you and your debate teams to attend the annual William R DeMougeot Debates on January 5 7 2010 The tournament this year will include three divisions of debate on the 2009 2010 CEDA NDT topic have quality preliminary rounds in Open Junior and Novice divisions and clear to an appropriate number of elimination rounds for each division Preliminary rounds will be held at the University of North Texas This year our tournament hotel is the Holiday Inn 940 383 4100 which has guaranteed us a special rate for participants in the tournament 85 00 If you are making reservations online please use reservation code DEB to get the special rate We strongly encourage you to stay at the tournament hotel as registration and all other extra events will be held there You should make reservations as soon as possible We plan to use the 100 point Ross K Smith scale for speaker points We will clear half of the field in all divisions As our colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas mentioned this tournament is held in conjunction with the Fear and Loathing in Dallas tournament in order to provide two opportunities for quality competition in Texas lovely January weather The UNT prelim debates will be held January 5th and 6th and we plan on having 7 preliminary debates Participation in the DeMougeot debates is a prerequisite to winning the coveted Texas Two Step Award given to the team with the best prelim record at the two tournaments There is a full day off between the two Texas steps January 8th This year we will host a coaches reception breakfast and lunch for participants coaches and judges on January 5th and 6th and much much more We hope you will consider joining us in January Sincerely Brian Lain Director of Debate Louie Petit Assistant Director of Debate Calum Matheson Debate Coach Lauren Sabino Assistant Coach Jason Sykes Assistant Coach The North Texas Debate Forum 2010 WILLIAM R DEMOUGEOT DEBATES January 5 7 2010 REGISTRATION We will accept entries for the tournament through January 1 at 5 00 pm We have enabled Bruschke s entry system at www debateresults com If there are any problems email me at blain at unt edu Registration will take place at the tournament hotel on Monday night DIVISIONS We will have three divisions of debate at the tournament this year Open division is open to any undergraduate student with eligibility The Junior division and Novice divisions are open to anyone who meets the CEDA eligibility standards for junior or novice participation JUDGING A qualified judge must be provided to cover your judging commitments Because we will have 7 rounds one team requires four rounds of judging two teams require 7 rounds of judging There may be some judges available for hire at the rate of 100 uncovered team but you should let us know well in advance if you need to hire judges Judging obligations extend through the first elimination round or one round beyond your team s elimination FORMAT AND RULES We will use the 9 3 6 format with ten minutes preparation time per team in open and junior divisions Rounds 1 2 will be preset The rest will be powered Debate teams consist of TWO persons from the same school Hybrid teams are acceptable and may advance to elimination rounds In the event of illness a single debater may debate 2 rounds alone but may not be allowed to clear based on the tournament director s discretion We will NOT break brackets in elimination rounds FEES Entry fees are 100 team for all divisions This includes trophies tournament supply expenses and hospitality Please make checks payable to North Texas Debate HOUSING We have reserved a block of rooms at the Holiday Inn Hotel here in Denton They have guaranteed us a rate of 85 night for most of the hotel s quad rooms This hotel is close to campus and very close to many fine dining establishments This is where the pairings will be released and registration will take place Please confirm your reservation at the Holiday Inn by calling 940 383 4100 Make sure to mention University of North Texas Debate TRANSPORTATION We are unable to provide shuttle service between the tournament hotel and UNT during the tournament Should you have difficulty in arranging transportation please contact us ahead of time 2010 William DeMougeot College Tournament Tentative TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Tuesday Jan 5th 7 00am Rounds 1 and 2 released at Radisson 7 30 Breakfast at the School 8 30am 10 30am Round 1 10 30am 12 30pm Round 2 12 30 1 30 Lunch On your own 2 00pm 4 00pm Round 3 4 30pm Round 4 Pairings released 5 30pm 7 30pm Round 4 Wednesday Jan 6th 7 00am Rounds 5 6 released at Radisson 7 30 Breakfast at the School 8 00am 10 00am Round 5 10 30 12 30pm Round 6 12 30 2 00 Lunch provided 2 00pm Round 7 Pairings released 2 30 4 30pm Round 7 open only 5 00pm Awards Assembly and Pairings for Doubles released 5 30pm 7 30pm Double Octafinals Thursday Jan 7th 7 00am Elim Pairings released 8 00 10 00 Octafinals Open next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091111 fb72fc6b attachment htm From ralph paone Tue Nov 10 19 08 03 2009 From ralph paone Ralph Paone Date Wed 11 Nov 2009 01 08 03 0000 Subject eDebate 4 Rounds for sale at Wake Message ID Back channel me I m open to hearing any offers Ralph next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091111 9750d1d2 attachment htm From jtedebate Wed Nov 11 16 56 45 2009 From jtedebate J T Date Wed 11 Nov 2009 22 56 45 0000 Subject eDebate Wake Judging for sale Message ID I have two rounds I can cover W James Taylor JT Clinical Instructor Asst Debate Coach Emporia State University Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University The contents are the sole opinion of the author next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091111 a5be033b attachment htm From debatekorea Thu Nov 12 08 39 42 2009 From debatekorea Jason Jarvis Date Thu 12 Nov 2009 14 39 42 0000 Subject eDebate Jack Rogers In Reply To References Message ID I apologize for the mass mail I am trying to find Jack Rogers who at one point was part of UT Tyler and published an article about judge bias in debate I m trying to find out about his research so if you know him and can help me get into contact with him I would SINCERELY appreciate it cheers Jason Jarvis Find the right PC with Windows 7 and Windows Live http www microsoft com Windows pc scout laptop set criteria aspx cbid wl filt 200 2400 10 19 1 3 1 7 50 650 2 12 0 1000 cat 1 2 3 4 5 6 brands 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 addf 4 5 9 ocid PID24727 T WLMTAGL ON WL en US WWL WIN evergreen2 112009 next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091112 3fe56705 attachment htm From alfred snider Thu Nov 12 12 19 47 2009 From alfred snider Alfred C Snider Date Thu 12 Nov 2009 18 19 47 0000 Subject eDebate Ithaca College Tournament January 30 31 2010 Message ID This is a preliminary announcement NORTHEAST OPEN DEBATE TOURNAMENT Worlds format JV Novice policy format On the weekend of the NYC policy round robin in NYC others will be getting in on the debating act in Ithaca New York Ithaca College will in cooperation with Cornell University be offering all that is not happening in NYC The tournament will feature competition in the WUDC format with 6 prelims and an appropriate number of elimination rounds The Chief Adjudicator will be Alfred Snider that s me from the University of Vermont while the DCA will be Sam Nelson of Cornell THIS WOULD BE AN IDEAL TIME FOR WUDC FORMAT TEAMS FROM THE WEST COAST AND BEYOND WHO WANT TO SAMPLE EAST COAST BP TO COME AND TRY IT OUT Ithaca College will also be offering policy debate competition at the junior varsity and novice levels Send your varsity debaters who are not in NYC as judges A full invitation will be coming out soon but circle those dates on your calendar Tuna Alfred C Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House 475 Main Street UVM Burlington VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http debate uvm edu debateblog LDU Global Debate Blog http globaldebateblog blogspot com Debate Central http debate uvm edu 802 656 0097 office telephone 802 656 4275 office fax From bigpoppa9889 Fri Nov 13 12 10 34 2009 From bigpoppa9889 Mike Lacy Date Fri 13 Nov 2009 18 10 34 0000 Subject eDebate Georgetown HS In Reply To References Message ID He s not wrong Hao really did kill it On Sat Oct 31 2009 at 11 09 PM Steve Ticker wrote Can I get the cites for the framework cards you read in the block today Really impressed by the 1nr Hao killed that Impressed with Georgetown HS especially given the year off Still a bit slow I think Hao can carry this team eDebate mailing list eDebate at www ndtceda com http www ndtceda com mailman listinfo edebate next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091113 33cf1dbd attachment htm From scottelliott Mon Nov 16 09 01 28 2009 From scottelliott scottelliott at grandecom net Date Mon 16 Nov 2009 15 01 28 0000 Subject eDebate Mardi Gras Tournament 2010 Invitation Message ID Dear Colleagues The University of Louisiana Lafayette Debate Program invites you to attend the Mardi Gras Policy Debate Tournament on February 12 through 15 2009 Our intent is to offer some Ragin Cajun hospitality and some good competition We have the tournament scheduled to encourage participation in Mardi Gras festivities You may want to arrive for the tournament on February 12 2010 We also suggest that you stay over Monday night in order to celebrate Fat Tuesday with us either in Lafayette or New Orleans A Humane Schedule We do not believe that tournament have to be death marches to victory When possible tournaments should strive to be more humane toward participants and more importantly to coaches Friday February 20th will be registration We encourage you to register early enough so that you may then attend the Friday night parade Saturday has three rounds beginning at 9 00 a m We will strictly enforce start times with forfeit rules Our goal is to have you out in time to watch the Bonaparte parade Sunday rounds also begin at 9 00 a m and we hope to end before 5 00 p m Monday elimination rounds begin at 10 00 a m Nuclear Blast Get Together In keeping with last year s support your local CAFO barbecue which featured hamburgers and homemade jambalaya we will again have a politically incorrect lunch and an off campus coaches reception Those who attended last year will attest that last year s hospitality lives up to Louisiana traditions Parades in Lafayette The schedule allows individuals time to attend the Lafayette Mardi Gras parades The Friday February 12 night parade begins at 6 30 p m The Saturday night Parade of Bonaparte begins at 6 30 p m Given that the parade route runs right by campus persons attending the tournament will merely have to walk fifty yards from their last debate round on Saturday to secure a prime bead catching location There are no parades in Lafayette on Sunday night However there are plenty of festivities throughout Lafayette to celebrate Monday s Queen of Evangeline Parade begins at 6 00 p m Mardi Gras really is a Louisiana official holiday and yes we really do get four days off from school to celebrate When we lived in Texas my wife was appalled to find out that other states did not recognize this holiday another affront to Cajun culture We look forward to seeing you this February Scott M Elliott Ph D J D Asst Prof and Dir of Debate UL Lafayette Sme2607 at louisiana edu Office 337 482 6090 Cell 337 849 7487 Tournament Information Entry Fees 60 00 per team 10 00 per person other than debate teams The fees will be used to cover the cost of the barbecue awards coffee and king cake and tournament administration costs Judging Teams will only be allowed to enter if they have judging to cover them As a new program we do not have the alumni to hire as extra judges Please bring judges to cover your commitment Awards Some of the old guard may remember the unique awards from the Southeastern Louisiana University Mardi Gras Tournament We hope to provide the same type of awards but with a Cajun flare The Mardi Gras masks may come back But we are also looking into some support from the Tabasco company and local artist George Rodrigue Blue Dog Directions location airports Lafayette Louisiana is at located at the junction of Interstate 10 and Interstate 49 The Lafayette Regional Airport is literally 10 minutes from campus and less than ten minutes from the tournament hotel We are 45 minutes from Baton Rouge We are two hours from the New Orleans airport We are four hours from Houston and approximately eight hours from Dallas Hotels Remember it is Mardi Gras So try to book your rooms early Holiday Inn Express Hotel Suites LAFAYETTE SOUTH 210 KALISTE SALOOM 337 456 6900 Hilton Lafayette 1521 West Pinhook Road Lafayette Louisiana United States 70503 3158 Tel 1 337 235 6111 Fax 1 337 237 6313 La Quinta Inn Suites Lafayette 1015 West Pinhook Road Lafayette LA 70503 Phone 1 337 291 1088 Fax 1 337 235 4703 Ramada Lafayette 120 E Kaliste Saloom Rd Lafayette LA 70508 US Phone 337 235 0858 Fax 337 232 8022 Tournament Schedule University of Louisiana Lafayette Mardi Gras Policy Tournament Tentative Schedule Friday February 12 2009 Registration Tournament Hotel 5 00 8 00 p m Lafayette Mardi Gras parade from 6 30 9 00 Pairings for Rds 1 and 2 released at Hotel and on edebate as soon as possible after registration Saturday Feb 13 9 00 a m King Cake coffee Round 1 11 00 a m Round 2 Lunch break following Round 2 2 30 p m or earlier Pairings for Rd 3 released 3 00 p m Round 3 Sunday Feb 14 8 00 a m Round 4 pairings released Hotel and edebate 9 00 a m King Cake Coffee Round 4 11 30 a m Round 5 Lunch Break following Rd 5 Depending on the University we will have the barbecue either for lunch after round 5 or a barbecue off campus for dinner after round 6 3 00 p m Round 6 Breaks Posted Monday Feb 15 10 00 a m First Elimination Rounds 12 30 p m Awards 1 30 p m Second Elimination Rounds 4 00 p m Third Elimination Rounds From nicksciullo Mon Nov 16 20 55 11 2009 From nicksciullo Nick Sciullo Date Tue 17 Nov 2009 02 55 11 0000 Subject eDebate Selling up to 6 rounds at Wake Message ID I m selling up to 6 rounds at Wake Email me if you need some rounds I have room and travel nicksciullo at hotmail com Thanks Nick J Sciullo Navy Debate Hotmail Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection http clk atdmt com GBL go 177141665 direct 01 next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091117 f3cb6b68 attachment htm From andy edebate Tue Nov 17 10 11 15 2009 From andy edebate Andy Ellis Date Tue 17 Nov 2009 16 11 15 0000 Subject eDebate CEDA L FW NFA Schools A request for information In Reply To References Message ID What possible reason would anybody on this listserv have for supporting them in this move I can understand why the nfa listserv would be intersted and any members that have dual membership might see it as part of the goal of promoting forensics but this is a list for the cross examination debate association It seems silly to use it to help people who are explicitly in opposition to cross examination debate promote their agenda On 11 3 09 Darren Elliott wrote This was posted to the IE list serv Anyone in that area able to have any influence to keep Marist chief From bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu On Behalf Of audrad75 at aol com audrad75 at aol com Sent Tuesday November 03 2009 2 10 PM To ie l at cornell edu Subject NFA Schools A request for information Hi All Marist is in the middle of re assessing forensics and they know they want to transition away from Policy NDA CEDA but are wanting some data and recommendations which is where I come in I ve been tasked to put together a series of recommendations for them in really rebuilding what they re going to do with forensics here To that end I m trying to collect some anecdotal information about program participation in NFA in particular and so if you would like to be included as an anecdote or aggregate of information any information you could send me on the following would be greatly appreciated Not surprisingly there s no deadline but the sooner I can get it in the better translation they d like it two days ago so if you get an immediate chance for feedback fantastic I ll also be trolling the NFA meeting for feedback as well Points of commentary 1 Why NFA versus or in addition to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 2 What range of salary is appropriate AND realistic for a DOF not asking how much you make though that could be a good gauge 3 Do you think NFA offers any unique benefits for competition and participation among diverse populations of students compared to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 4 How much of a difference would it make does it make to have an administrative assistant doing the paperwork for the team versus doing it yourself 5 And the catch all what else do you think an administration should know about supporting and re tooling a forensics program Thanks in advance Audra Sent from my mobile device From andy edebate Tue Nov 17 10 17 25 2009 From andy edebate Andy Ellis Date Tue 17 Nov 2009 16 17 25 0000 Subject eDebate CEDA L FW NFA Schools A request for information In Reply To References Message ID What possible reason would anybody on this listserv have for supporting them in this move I can understand why the nfa listserv would be intersted and any members that have dual membership might see it as part of the goal of promoting forensics but this is a list for the cross examination debate association It seems silly to use it to help people who are explicitly in opposition to cross examination debate promote their agenda On 11 3 09 Darren Elliott wrote This was posted to the IE list serv Anyone in that area able to have any influence to keep Marist chief From bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu On Behalf Of audrad75 at aol com audrad75 at aol com Sent Tuesday November 03 2009 2 10 PM To ie l at cornell edu Subject NFA Schools A request for information Hi All Marist is in the middle of re assessing forensics and they know they want to transition away from Policy NDA CEDA but are wanting some data and recommendations which is where I come in I ve been tasked to put together a series of recommendations for them in really rebuilding what they re going to do with forensics here To that end I m trying to collect some anecdotal information about program participation in NFA in particular and so if you would like to be included as an anecdote or aggregate of information any information you could send me on the following would be greatly appreciated Not surprisingly there s no deadline but the sooner I can get it in the better translation they d like it two days ago so if you get an immediate chance for feedback fantastic I ll also be trolling the NFA meeting for feedback as well Points of commentary 1 Why NFA versus or in addition to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 2 What range of salary is appropriate AND realistic for a DOF not asking how much you make though that could be a good gauge 3 Do you think NFA offers any unique benefits for competition and participation among diverse populations of students compared to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 4 How much of a difference would it make does it make to have an administrative assistant doing the paperwork for the team versus doing it yourself 5 And the catch all what else do you think an administration should know about supporting and re tooling a forensics program Thanks in advance Audra Sent from my mobile device From andy edebate Tue Nov 17 11 13 08 2009 From andy edebate Andy Ellis Date Tue 17 Nov 2009 17 13 08 0000 Subject eDebate CEDA L FW NFA Schools A request for information In Reply To References Message ID My bad Too quick of a response I got overwhelmed by the second part of it And missed the first part On 11 17 09 Andy Ellis wrote What possible reason would anybody on this listserv have for supporting them in this move I can understand why the nfa listserv would be intersted and any members that have dual membership might see it as part of the goal of promoting forensics but this is a list for the cross examination debate association It seems silly to use it to help people who are explicitly in opposition to cross examination debate promote their agenda On 11 3 09 Darren Elliott wrote This was posted to the IE list serv Anyone in that area able to have any influence to keep Marist chief From bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu bounce 4526626 3411687 at list cornell edu On Behalf Of audrad75 at aol com audrad75 at aol com Sent Tuesday November 03 2009 2 10 PM To ie l at cornell edu Subject NFA Schools A request for information Hi All Marist is in the middle of re assessing forensics and they know they want to transition away from Policy NDA CEDA but are wanting some data and recommendations which is where I come in I ve been tasked to put together a series of recommendations for them in really rebuilding what they re going to do with forensics here To that end I m trying to collect some anecdotal information about program participation in NFA in particular and so if you would like to be included as an anecdote or aggregate of information any information you could send me on the following would be greatly appreciated Not surprisingly there s no deadline but the sooner I can get it in the better translation they d like it two days ago so if you get an immediate chance for feedback fantastic I ll also be trolling the NFA meeting for feedback as well Points of commentary 1 Why NFA versus or in addition to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 2 What range of salary is appropriate AND realistic for a DOF not asking how much you make though that could be a good gauge 3 Do you think NFA offers any unique benefits for competition and participation among diverse populations of students compared to AFA NPDA Policy etc etc 4 How much of a difference would it make does it make to have an administrative assistant doing the paperwork for the team versus doing it yourself 5 And the catch all what else do you think an administration should know about supporting and re tooling a forensics program Thanks in advance Audra Sent from my mobile device Sent from my mobile device From jbruschke Tue Nov 17 11 18 20 2009 From jbruschke jbruschke at fullerton edu Date Tue 17 Nov 2009 17 18 20 0000 Subject eDebate Tournament invitation hosted by Texas Message ID Name Texas Starts 2 6 2010 Ends 2 8 2010 Hosted by Texas Contact Joel Rollins Address One University Station A1105 Austin TX 78712 Phone 512 565 4532 On line entry allowed True AFA Open tournament open to non AFA members False Divisions Offered Other details are available at http www debateresults com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament If so you will be notified by a separate email From jbruschke Tue Nov 17 19 54 12 2009 From jbruschke jbruschke at fullerton edu Date Wed 18 Nov 2009 01 54 12 0000 Subject eDebate Tournament invitation hosted by Texas Dallas Message ID Name Fear and Loathing in Dallas UTD Starts 1 9 2010 Ends 1 11 2010 Hosted by Texas Dallas Contact Christopher Burk Address Phone 972 536 3995 On line entry allowed True AFA Open tournament open to non AFA members True Divisions Offered Open with 7 prelims expected to clear to Doubles Junior Varsity with 6 prelims expected to clear to Octos Novice with 6 prelims expected to clear to Semis Other details are available at http www debateresults com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament If so you will be notified by a separate email From crb012000 Tue Nov 17 19 58 46 2009 From crb012000 Burk Christopher R Date Wed 18 Nov 2009 01 58 46 0000 Subject eDebate UT Dallas Tournament Invitation Fear and Loathing in Dallas 2010 Message ID November 17 2009 Seventh Annual Fear and Loathing in Dallas Invitation to the University of Texas at Dallas Intercollegiate Debate Tournament Dear Colleagues We present the following conditional tournament The University of Texas at Dallas Debate Team invites you to join us January 9 11 2010 for the seventh annual Fear and Loathing in Dallas Intercollegiate Debate Tournament Yes somehow we still get to do this Our tournament will be the second half of the Texas Two Step The University of North Texas will host the first half Teams attending both tournaments will have Friday January 8th as a day off to relocate rest and research We will offer debates in three divisions open junior varsity and novice We expect all three divisions to be large enough to remain distinct this season However we will collapse the Novice division into the Junior Varsity division if necessary Please complete all entries by 12 00 noon on Wednesday January 6 2010 We will submit final orders for all food purchases that afternoon so correct information by the entry deadline is necessary We will also need to close entries into order to begin the judge preference process We definitely need final entries for both TEAMS and JUDGES by noon of January 6 Please use the famous Bruschke system for entering the teams and the judges You can find that system here http commweb fullerton edu jbruschke web Index aspx ENTRY LIMITS UT Dallas is experiencing a shortage of suitable classrooms Therefore the UT Dallas Debate Team must unfortunately impose an entry limit of ninety 100 total teams at this time There is a good chance that we might be able to secure access to a few more rooms but we

same tournament hotel and elimination round facilities that we will use for those tournaments We sincerely hope that you will attend our tournament this year as we would like to prepare the hotel for these tournaments Although the Cal team is well versed in running large debate tournaments the Oakland City Center Marriott is not so the more teams that attend the more realistic this test run will be I strongly urge you to stay at the Marriott This is an outstanding facility with excellent elimination round facilities I have managed to secure a tournament rate of 117 per night for up to 4 people per room We have a block of rooms and the block expires a month before the tournament begins You can make reservations now by calling 1 888 236 2427 and asking for the Cal Swing Debate Tournament rate MAKE YOUR HOTEL RESERVATIONS NOW Last year many people were squeezed out of the tournament hotel because they failed to make reservations in a timely manner The cutoff date for the event is December 1 and it is possible our block will be full before then Keep in mind that this is an urban hotel and you will be required to pay for parking The self parking rate is 22 per night and the valet rate is 26 per night Two changes to our traditional tournaments to note First we will be serving lunch on each of the prelim days in order to both expedite the schedule and to test out catering options for the NDT Our fee structure reflects this change Second in order to help folks defray costs we are going to offer an evidence and people shuttle service to and from campus This will allow you to avoid renting a car and incurring both rental and parking fees both of which can add up in Berkeley We will offer an evidence shuttle and shuttle service to and from campus for 30 per person per tournament Information about this service will be provided below in the invitation as well as via email as the tournament approachesl For general info about the hotel go to http www marriott com hotels travel oakdt oakland marriott city center We are pleased to be able to host a tournament at Berkeley If you have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to contact me Sincerely Greg Achten Tournament Director Co Director of Debate 818 357 8424 Transportation I strongly urge those flying to use Oakland International It is much closer to campus much easier to navigate and often much cheaper as it is served by discount carriers Southwest and JetBlue Directions to Hotel Transportation Information From Oakland International Airport Mileage 8 Miles Exit airport Take Hegenberger Rd to I 880 N Exit Broadway and turn right Go 3 blocks turn left on 10th St Make right turns around the block to hotel entrance Evidence People shuttling We can get you to and from campus for 30 per person per tournament There is also a BART train station right across the street from the hotel and one 5 minutes from campus if you wish to go back to the hotel early in the day You will be responsible for getting yourself to and from the airport I recommend two shuttle services Bayporter bayporter com or Super Shuttle supershuttle com Parking Parking in Berkeley is expensive and scarce We will have a limited number of parking permits available for sale for 25 each per tournament This is generally cheaper than you will find in Berkeley and much closer If you wish to order a parking permit or permits please email that request to me as soon as possible but by December 1 at the latest Campus Policies The Berkeley Campus is a smoke free campus There is no smoking in ANY building on campus PLEASE abide by this policy so that we may continue to use these facilities in subsequent years The Berkeley campus is also a drug and alcohol free campus Entry Information Online entry is required at www debateresults com Tab Room The tab room will be run by myself Greg Achten Jon Bruschke Becky Opsata and Glen Frappier Procedures Brackets will not be broken in elimination rounds and sides in elims will be determined by a coin flip between the opponents unless they met in the preliminary rounds Hybrids and mavericks will be allowed on a case by case basis and only in extraordinary circumstances Our tournament supports and adheres to the CEDA Anti Sexual Harassment Policy Divisions We will use the joint CEDA NDT policy topic We will offer Open any undergraduate meeting AFA eligibility requirements and Junior any undergraduate student that meets the CEDA definition of a JV debater and Novice any undergraduate in their first year of debate that meets the CEDA definition of a novice debater We reserve the right to collapse divisions if entries warrant In the Varsity division we will clear all 4 2 teams under the following conditions should entries warrant we will clear to a full double octo final assuming we have 64 entries in the division Absent that a partial double octo final round will be held ONLY if it would involve 8 teams or 4 debates In the event that fewer than 4 partial debates would occur we will cut 4 2 s on points and other tie breakers and will recognize teams not advancing at the awards ceremony Fees Fees will be 50 per person including judges and observers This will include breakfast and lunch each day or prelims Judging Each school is expected to provide 3 rounds of judging per team For each team beyond the first two we ask that schools provide 4 rounds of judging This is in line with the judging expectation at many other major national tournaments and we ask this to maximize our ability to place highly preferred judges in important debates Each judge will be obligated for through the octafinal or one round beyond the elimination of their team We have some hired judges that we can provide but not many Hired judges will be given on a first come first served basis at a fee of 150 per uncovered team We are not trying to make money on hired judges We would much rather have your judges than your money If you have extra judges available from your school please let me know as we would probably like to hire them We will use preference strike sheets for prelims and elims All judges are expected to render a decision within 2 hours and 45 minutes of the start time of the debate If a judge has failed to render their decision by this time the tab room will ask the judge to vote in the next minute If the judge fails to vote by this time the tab room will decide the debate through the flip of a coin This policy applies to preliminary rounds only Each judge must designate one and only one team as the winner of the debate We will use a 30 point scale Points may be awarded in full and half point increments only Questions If you need to get in touch with me please call or email Mobile 818 357 8424 Email gregachten at berkeley edu Schedule of Events January 2nd 6 8 PM Registration Marriott January 3rd 7 00 AM Late registration on campus in Dwinelle Hall Pairings released on campus and at Marriott continental breakfast on campus 8 00 AM Round 1 10 45 AM Round 2 1 00 PM Lunch 2 30 PM Round 3 6 00 PM Round 4 8 30 PM First shuttle for hotel departs January 4th 6 15 AM First shuttle departs for campus 7 00 AM Round 5 pairings released on campus and at Marriott continental breakfast on campus 8 00 AM Round 5 11 45 AM Round 6 2 00 PM Lunch on campus 3 00 PM Awards Ceremony 4 30 PM First Elimination Round in all divisions 7 30 PM First shuttle leaves for hotel January 5th 7 00 AM Pairings for elimination rounds released at Marriott 8 00 AM Varsity Octafinals at Marriott 11 00 AM Subsequent varsity elimination rounds and initial novice and JV elims January 6th Day off 6 00 PM Registration at Marriott for teams only entered in tournament two January 7th 7 00 AM Late registration on campus in Dwinelle Hall Pairings released on campus and at Marriott continental breakfast on campus 8 00 AM Round 1 10 45 AM Round 2 1 00 PM Lunch 2 30 PM Round 3 6 00 PM Round 4 8 30 PM First shuttle for hotel departs January 8th 6 15 AM First shuttle departs for campus 7 00 AM Round 5 pairings released on campus and at Marriott continental breakfast on campus 8 00 AM Round 5 11 45 AM Round 6 2 00 PM Lunch on campus 3 00 PM Awards Ceremony 4 30 PM First Elimination Round in all divisions 7 30 PM First shuttle leaves for hotel January 9th 7 00 AM Pairings for elimination rounds released at Marriott 8 00 AM Varsity Octafinals at Marriott 11 00 AM Subsequent varsity elimination rounds and initial novice and JV elims From rowedan Tue Oct 13 19 05 24 2009 From rowedan Dan Rowe Date Tue 13 Oct 2009 19 05 24 0500 Subject eDebate Baylor FN Cite Request Message ID Backchannel me at rowedan at gmail com if you have the time next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091013 62a002d3 attachment htm From odekirk scott Tue Oct 13 19 23 44 2009 From odekirk scott scott odekirk Date Tue 13 Oct 2009 18 23 44 0600 Subject eDebate 3 4 rounds for sale at harvard Message ID 30 in cash per round Scott Odekirk next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091013 1b71ae34 attachment htm From goody5534 Tue Oct 13 20 13 19 2009 From goody5534 rob goodrich Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 01 13 19 0000 Subject eDebate Judge for Hire Harvard and West Point Message ID I am available for a Full Commitment at either or both tournaments Please back channel me at goody5534 at hotmail com Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate Hotmail Free trusted and rich email service Get it now Hotmail Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft http clk atdmt com GBL go 171222986 direct 01 next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 505cf465 attachment htm From Pacedebate Tue Oct 13 21 35 24 2009 From Pacedebate Pacedebate at aol com Date Tue 13 Oct 2009 22 35 24 EDT Subject eDebate College Preview Progam Heart of Texas Invitational Last Call Message ID I will start photocopying our packets early next week so you have a few days left anytime before the 19th is fine to get your materials into me Also this year we will make some tables available in our library that you can move outside and set up an information table if you want and the weather permits Thanks Tim Mahoney Director of Debate St Mark s School of Texas 10600 Preston Road Dallas TX 75230 214 346 8141 214 734 3673 cell 425 740 9130 fax next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091013 4686a3c8 attachment htm From andy edebate Wed Oct 14 00 35 38 2009 From andy edebate Andy Ellis Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 01 35 38 0400 Subject eDebate Fwd Judge for Hire Harvard and West Point In Reply To References Message ID Forwarded message From rob goodrich Date Tue Oct 13 2009 at 9 20 PM Subject Judge for Hire Harvard and West Point To andy edebate at gmail com Andy could you post this for me I seem incapable of getting this message up on edebate From goody5534 at hotmail com To edebate at www ndtceda com Subject Judge for Hire Harvard and West Point Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 01 13 19 0000 I am available for a Full Commitment at either or both tournaments Please back channel me at goody5534 at hotmail com Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate Hotmail Free trusted and rich email service Get it now Hotmail Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft Get it now Hotmail Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection Sign up now next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 1a529b65 attachment htm From stevendamico Wed Oct 14 07 10 36 2009 From stevendamico stevendamico at gmail com Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 12 10 36 0000 Subject eDebate 8 rounds avail for harvard Message ID If this makes it to edebate in time Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From ianedebate Wed Oct 14 11 02 08 2009 From ianedebate Ian Beier Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 09 02 08 0700 Subject eDebate 3 rounds at ISU Message ID lemme know if you want em Ian Beier next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 4bdb493a attachment htm From bamadebate Wed Oct 14 11 52 08 2009 From bamadebate ed lee Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 09 52 08 0700 PDT Subject eDebate 87 Average Response from D Heidt In Reply To References Message ID Put a scale on the ballot It solves the need to have this conversation Dave byway of Ed From JP Lacy To edebate at ndtceda com Sent Fri October 9 2009 6 45 37 PM Subject Re eDebate 87 Average JP Lacy wrote Quick summary Judges should figure out the community scale use it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines I m not a numbers person at all I m also struggling like everyone else with the 100 point scale My point assignment at GSU Kentucky was basically lousy My old scale You cheated 0 Rude 26 Below average 27 5 Average 28 Clearing 28 5 Getting a top 10 speaker award 29 Getting a very high speaker award 29 5 I know this scale is not optimal Its inflated compared to most judges but I don t like being a spoiler Just for fun I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale I used division to do it Translation of my old scale using math Below average 92 Average 93 Clearing 95 Getting a top 10 speaker award 97 Getting a very high speaker award 98 Ugh That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale 27 5 29 5 We all know the old scale isn t very good The important distinctions The ones between teams clearing not and the ones between the top speakers are basically statistical noise So the 100 point scale is better I m a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points I don t think its fair to do otherwise That does not mean if you got good points before you get them from me That does mean if your debating in the round I judge you is top ten quality you get top ten points I eyeballed the Kentucky results came up with the following scale which seems to reflect where the community is going Below average 83 Depends Debaters are above average students Below average competitors don t need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were unless they were rude or cheated Average 85 Clearing barely 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award 92 Getting a top ten speaker award 93 Getting a top five speaker award 94 Top Speaker 96 I won t say this is the proper scale I won t say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale I will say that after 2 tournaments it is the one in use Out of fairness I ll stick to it adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don t publish guidelines I m completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale It makes results more meaningful If a tournament publishes guidelines I ll follow them Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results JP Brian DeLong wrote Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale Some people are on this 87 average boat while others place average at around 78 80ish I m no numbers game nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur Reaching consensus is clearly impossible People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that s fine but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of unity somewhere Without some point of consistent measurement to work off of we re going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets A counterargument to this is that maybe these anti point inflation crusaders aren t that great of judges to begin with in the first place Fair enough But for those of us who wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge whether we are good or not some baseline is needed Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set a norm for this community We have the ability to set up an informal or formal voting system This method would at least take the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a baseline scale With that said I am on board with voting for a point system that looks like this 30 29 6 100 96 29 5 29 0 95 90 28 9 28 5 85 89 28 4 28 79 84 27 9 27 78 72 26 9 26 0 71 60 Thoughts To respond to number s games observations As Ross Smith once claimed the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information 5 and 10 clustering is only inevitable eDebate mailing list eDebate at www ndtceda com http www ndtceda com mailman listinfo edebate eDebate mailing list eDebate at www ndtceda com http www ndtceda com mailman listinfo edebate next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 3b33f3d6 attachment htm From EMarlow Wed Oct 14 12 32 15 2009 From EMarlow Eric Marlow Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 12 32 15 0500 Subject eDebate Need Room At Harvard Message ID If anyone is releasing a room at the Harvard hotel could you please contact me UCO needs one double room in the tournament hotel Thanks Peace Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 ef4072b3 attachment htm next part A non text attachment was scrubbed Name image001 jpg Type image jpeg Size 5675 bytes Desc image001 jpg Url http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 ef4072b3 attachment jpg From ralph paone Wed Oct 14 17 23 13 2009 From ralph paone Ralph Paone Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 17 23 13 0500 Subject eDebate selling 5 rounds at Harvard Message ID Shoot me an offer peace ralph next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 41d5ff52 attachment html From davismk13 Wed Oct 14 19 02 06 2009 From davismk13 Mike Davis Date Wed 14 Oct 2009 21 02 06 0300 Subject eDebate Vandy Prefs Message ID Entries for Vandy are closed Please send any changes to me and ML Prefs are open and will be available until noon on Friday Mike Dr Michael Davis Director of Debate Assistant Professor James Madison University next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091014 fd70c792 attachment htm From lacyjp Thu Oct 15 01 01 34 2009 From lacyjp JP Lacy Date Thu 15 Oct 2009 02 01 34 0400 Subject eDebate Scouting Rules Message ID Not really rules but proposed norms 1 Priority to Public Priority goes to scouts who will share information publicly Right now that means posting stuff on the wiki Scouts need to eliminate their assumption that because someone is gathering cites it will be shared Often there are people who gather cites or read evidence for their own purposes after a debate This is fine but the time it takes them to read type cites trades off with those ready to do so for public consumption The needs of the community far outweigh their concerns As everyone is aware there are certain power dynamics involved in cite gathering Everyone should be aware of those dynamics make sure that scouting for squad only or private purposes is a much lower priority If a scout who won t agree to share is monopolizing pages try to figure out how to share with them or alert a debate judge Most judges will be willing to say that a scout who will share has priority 2 Scouts Honor Don t say you ll share when you won t Scouts have an obligation to get their stuff posted publicly as soon as they can After all its a shared resource If there are several people waiting on the info you are gathering obviously you should post it the moment you gather it Just sign up for the wiki edit it If someone is a bit slow getting your cites posted cut them some slack They probably lost the cites or forgot 3 Debaters Many of you want to share your cites exchange email addresses then forget to This is normal We need to get better at combating it If someone emails you for cites put them on the wiki instead It takes just as much time as email If you don t like posting to the wiki then email your stuff to me I ll take care of posting it when I have time If you get cites from someone put them on the wiki If you make an argument that someone finds cite gathering worthy then try to help them save time by using your own electronic files 4 Other Protocol Issues If a debater says you can have our cites if you put it on the wiki you should do so Its called a deal Maybe a contract I ve heard of some disagreements about this that could have been avoided if the people who agreed to post publicly would have followed through Just do it right away or email your stuff to me I ll get it posted No guarantee that I ll get it done fast enough to satisfy others What is the reason for all of this Because closed scouting is worse for debate than open scouting Closed scouting benefits the resource rich Open scouting can make every debate better How do I sign up for the wiki Easy Go to opencaselist wikispaces com click the join link in the upper right hand corner JP lacyjp at wfu edu From jtedebate Thu Oct 15 10 29 53 2009 From jtedebate J T Date Thu 15 Oct 2009 08 29 53 0700 PDT Subject eDebate Emporia Tournament Update Message ID Please finalize your entries today by 5pm Prefs will be initialized this evening Also the following judges do not have philosophies on debate results Dustin Rimmey I am kicking his butt as we speak Rachel Stevens UMKC Matt Coleman probably has his up but I got an error message and I m off to make zuchini bread for Registration W James Taylor JT Clinical Instructor Asst Debate Coach Emporia State University Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University The contents are the sole opinion of the author next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091015 4320def1 attachment htm From Gary N Larson Thu Oct 15 11 50 58 2009 From Gary N Larson Gary Larson Date Thu 15 Oct 2009 11 50 58 0500 Subject eDebate Kentucky data Message ID The discussion surrounding the 100 point scale a theoretical 87 point average and judge variance has been a valuable one Inevitably any change creates a period of disequilibration which is arguably a good thing in a learning system Most of the conversation about variance has focused on anecdotal anomalies where some judges consciously or unconsciously set different means The data from Kentucky confirms that these anomalies are indeed real and that judges did apparently approach the task with different interpretations of the mean The data below arrays the results for each judge in the pool that judged at least one prelim round But before we conclude too much let me offer a couple of caveats First the assumption of the comparison and the one that z scores are based on is that every judge being compared viewed a statistically similar sample of all of the rounds in the tournament That is demonstrably false Second many of the judges represented judged too small a sample to draw any reliable conclusions about their point assignment practices Third distributions are just that A judge who consistently gives 27 5 s on the 30 point scale is just as much an outlier as the judge who on average assigns 80 s in the distribution below even though it doesn t LOOK like as big an anomaly All that said it really should be a goal that critics who are observing exactly the same event although that only happens at the NDT should be assigning comparable scores to that event In that case inter rater reliability is only achieved if we have some commonly held rubrics for how to reward and punish debate performances in addition to shared interpretations of the scale but I suspect that this is a core issue about which we DON T have a community consensus But we also need to remember that with single judge panels critics NEVER observe the same events even if two critics judge exactly the same subset of teams during the course of a tournament Every debate is formally an n of 1 While we can and should agonize about whether scoring systems are better or worse about creating norms while preserving discrimination and necessary variability there is no such thing as the Holy Grail Avg Std n 75 75 3 30 4 77 88 4 63 16 78 94 4 28 16 79 25 4 09 12 79 38 6 48 16 79 50 5 04 8 79 50 5 15 8 80 13 3 05 16 80 50 2 94 12 80 54 3 78 24 80 58 4 56 12 81 00 3 66 8 81 00 1 83 4 81 50 6 45 16 81 75 6 85 16 81 94 4 46 16 82 50 2 67 8 82 75 2 55 8 83 33 3 52 12 83 50 3 96 8 83 75 6 42 24 83 75 4 69 20 83 75 2 05 16 83 88 3 05 16 83 88 3 76 8 84 13 7 55 8 84 25 2 02 16 84 25 1 16 8 84 29 4 03 24 84 50 2 53 16 84 50 8 72 12 84 63 4 90 8 84 63 2 97 8 84 75 5 17 16 84 75 0 71 8 84 87 4 91 15 85 00 0 00 4 85 08 3 60 12 85 29 6 02 24 85 31 5 65 16 85 32 2 88 28 85 45 4 95 20 85 50 5 80 4 85 50 9 47 4 85 58 2 91 12 85 65 4 55 20 85 65 5 32 20 85 88 3 52 16 85 88 1 55 8 86 13 4 32 16 86 25 4 39 28 86 25 1 49 8 86 33 3 14 12 86 42 6 19 12 86 44 7 79 16 86 45 2 21 20 86 50 2 20 8 86 50 1 73 4 86 56 3 54 16 86 63 7 23 8 86 67 1 83 12 86 69 3 36 16 86 75 4 88 16 86 86 3 33 28 86 95 2 50 20 87 00 4 88 28 87 13 3 58 16 87 14 3 68 28 87 15 4 42 20 87 33 3 31 12 87 38 2 72 8 87 42 3 06 12 87 44 3 14 16 87 44 4 72 16 87 50 4 08 16 87 50 1 68 12 87 50 0 58 4 87 58 3 68 12 87 68 2 71 28 87 70 3 46 23 87 75 2 77 24 87 75 3 77 4 87 88 2 94 16 87 92 5 12 24 87 92 4 62 12 87 92 1 16 12 88 00 2 95 12 88 00 2 45 4 88 08 3 37 12 88 13 2 75 8 88 18 3 80 28 88 40 2 33 20 88 45 5 25 20 88 50 1 29 4 88 55 2 63 20 88 65 3 10 20 88 75 1 29 12 88 75 6 90 4 88 83 4 47 12 88 88 3 40 16 88 89 4 83 28 88 92 1 08 12 88 94 3 26 16 88 94 1 69 16 89 00 2 36 28 89 00 2 61 28 89 00 2 60 20 89 00 4 24 8 89 13 2 17 8 89 50 3 20 16 89 55 2 37 20 89 56 2 10 16 89 67 1 67 12 89 89 2 13 28 90 00 0 00 4 90 50 0 58 4 90 83 2 29 12 91 50 3 32 24 92 00 2 16 4 92 75 2 71 20 92 85 3 23 20 next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091015 c555d61c attachment htm From scottyp431 Thu Oct 15 12 10 17 2009 From scottyp431 Scott Phillips Date Thu 15 Oct 2009 13 10 17 0400 Subject eDebate 8 prelim model Message ID Basic outline 8 preliminary rounds 5 rounds take place on Saturday Rounds 1 4 are preset and released by 5pm the Friday beforehand Round 5 is high high and paired off of only rounds 1 3 the pairing for round 5 would be released during round 4 Some basic assumptions of my model 1 There are not enough high high debates at tournaments More high high debates would produce more of the top level head to head matches that determine bid sheets and drive innovation by forcing teams to bust strategies and research new ones give on the cusp teams a bit of breathing room if you speak poorly some high high rounds give you a reprieve from a constant beat down the current system is too one sided eliminate some of the damage that having a large number of presets has on borderline teams by reducing the likelihood of getting jacked by having to debate a few top level teams in the presets and then win several break rounds in a row that are high low in your bracket 2 Debaters are given way to much pre round prep everyone goes for the same crap anyway the health care disad and cap K are highlighted already you don t need an hour to get ready for them Also releasing pairings earlier allows debaters to take advantage of the post round dead time waiting for a decision to prep more for later debates 3 More prelims are better people get more practice who should clear becomes clearer etc 4 Opponent wins should be more important in deciding who clears than speaker points there I said it The speaker point system is broken This is a team activity Especially with more high high debates which I have already conclusively proven is a moral obligation 5 Judges need to run a tighter ship stop prep stealing and time wasting enforce start times etc Debaters waste time because they are allowed too If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate A strict schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well organized and work hard How long does a round take 92 minutes Assume at least 10 minutes for screwing around brings us to 102 If each round is given 2 15 that is 135 minutes leaving over 1 2 an hour for making a decision You could even add another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour This would mean the schedule would could look like I have added an extra 10 minutes for travel time and extra time for lunch and dinner discussed below Round 1 7 45 Round 2 10 10 Round 3 1 15 Round 4 3 40 Round 5 6 45 This gets everyone out around 9 Day 2 Round 6 8 00 Round 7 10 30 Round 8 2 30 Doubles 6 00 Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one high high The pairing should be released at 6am Since you get out at roughly 9 you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you 7 8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping If you want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7 Round 8 is obviously important so there is a lot of extra prep built in for this If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should be in by 12 45 Giving people 1 2 hour for lunch that means they will still get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds Finally opp wins should be more important than speaker points in determining who clears The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of time is we ll get screwed Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of this argument and opposition to high high rounds It also allows time to figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected Some of this may seem pretty radical unworkable but a fundamental assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not waste it A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true but this is already a trade off in many other ways Top ways time is wasted at tournaments now that would be pressured to reform by judges and debaters 1 Cleaning up people don t do it until after the decision throw evidence all over the room during debates so they are later unable to find it etc 2